New tech required to be used for collecting, comparing evidence: Punjab and Haryana HC
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 24
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that new technology, including the tapping of communication devices, was required to be used for collecting and comparing evidence.
The assertion by Justice Avneesh Jhingan, amidst the Pegasus row, came with a rider: Compliance with the procedure laid down for the purpose was mandatory.
“With the advancement of technology, the modes of communication are changing. To keep pace with the change, new technology is required to be used for collecting and comparing evidence. One method being tapping of communication devices, but after compliance of the procedure laid down,” Justice Jhingan asserted.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed against the State of Punjab by Kamal Pal and another petitioner. They had challenged an order dated April 27 passed by Nawanshahr Additional Sessions Judge allowing Vigilance Bureau’s application for taking their voice samples.
Justice Jhingan’s Bench was told that the mobile used by the petitioners were tapped after taking approval following receipt of information by Punjab Vigilance Bureau.
It was alleged that the petitioners, both typists at Banga tehsil complex, were collecting money for getting the sale deeds registered from the tehsildar and other revenue officials. An FIR was registered after finding sufficient evidence.
An application filed by the vigilance bureau for permission to take the petitioners’ voice samples was allowed, resulting in the petition before the High Court. Among other things, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned order was in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and infringed upon the right of privacy. Article 20(3) of the Constitution says “No person can be compelled to be a witness against himself”.
Justice Jhingan asserted the issues raised by petitioners’ counsel were no longer res-integra or questions which have not yet been determined or resolved. “The infringement of the fundamental right to privacy cannot be raised to create a bubble to scuttle the investigation, nullifying the evidence collected by merely denying that the voice of the tapped phone calls is not of the petitioners and there being no comparables,” Justice Jhingan added.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Jhingan upheld the impugned order and rejected the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners.
